Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Sen. Plummer applauds the halting of the Democrats’ judicial subcircuits – AdVantageNEWS.com

A law Gov. J.B. Pritzker enacted to create judicial subcircuits in parts of Illinois has been temporarily blocked as some say the partisan measure was rushed through at the detriment of voters.

During their one day in session so far this year, Democrats earlier this month went at it alone, passing new judicial subcircuits. Without fanfare, Gov. J.B. Pritzker enacted the maps on Jan. 7.

State Sen. Jason Plummer, R-Edwardsville, reacted to a Sangamon County judge this week temporarily blocking those new judicial districts from going into effect in Madison County.

It wasnt just the packing of the courts [with Democratic judges], it wasnt trying to set the courts up, it also took away the vote from the vast majority of the people of Madison County to be able to vote for their local judicial elections this cycle, Plummer told The Center Square.

Some of the new districts were to take effect for the 2022 election cycle while others in other parts of the state would take effect in 2024. The new districts in Madison County pitted two sitting judges against each other in elections coming up this year, while creating other judicial subcircuits Plummer said didnt have equal representation. Even being on the Senates redistricting committee, he said there was little to no information about how the maps came about and for what reason they were rushed.

The Madison County Board, in a bipartisan vote, authorized the states attorney to sue to halt the maps. Monday, a Sangamon County judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the maps from being enacted.

Plummer said for him the issue is about transparency, the independence of the judiciary and more.

And the governor was put in a very bad spot, Plummer said. He foolishly signed the legislation and I think hell have egg on his face on this for a long time coming.

At an unrelated event in East St. Louis Wednesday, Pritzker said hell keep an eye on the litigation, but declined to comment further.

I dont have much to say about it, Pritzker said. "Its obviously an ongoing case."

Pritzker questioned why he as governor and the Illinois State Board of Elections were the defendants in the case when there were "many other people ... involved in it," but he did not elaborate.

"Who did this?" Plummer asked. "Who pushed this legislation? Who drew the maps?"

Plummer said the politicization of the court system in a hyper-partisan era should be opposed by both parties.

I think the people in the Metro East with bipartisan opposition to it are going to have a lot of questions for the governor, who said he will not participate in partisan redistricting, Plummer said. This is the epitome of partisan redistricting.

The case continues Feb. 15.

Go here to read the rest:
Sen. Plummer applauds the halting of the Democrats' judicial subcircuits - AdVantageNEWS.com

Bitterness From Supreme Court Fights Hangs Over Coming Nomination – The New York Times

WASHINGTON It was a testament to the breakdown of the Senates judicial confirmation machinery that the first question posed by many this past week regarding an upcoming Supreme Court vacancy was whether Democrats could install a new justice entirely on their own.

The answer is yes, if the party sticks together. And the prospect of President Bidens eventual nominee receiving only Democratic votes is hardly far-fetched, given the bitter history of recent confirmation fights for the high court.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the last member of the court confirmed by the Senate, did not receive a single Democratic vote. But Republicans held a 53-to-47 advantage and could afford to lose a colleague or two in ramming through her nomination just before the presidential election in 2020.

With their bare-minimum 50-seat majority, Democrats will not have that luxury after Mr. Biden nominates the first Black woman for the court sometime in the next few weeks. Considering the toxic partisan atmosphere surrounding contemporary Supreme Court fights, it is conceivable she could make history not only because of her gender and race, but also as the first person elevated to the court by a tiebreaking vote of the vice president.

It would be a far cry from the simple voice-vote approval of many of her predecessors as recently as the 1960s. Or the 98-to-0 confirmation of Justice Antonin Scalia, a leading judicial conservative, in 1986. Or even the 87-to-9 vote in 1994 for Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a member of the courts liberal wing, who announced on Thursday that he would step down after nearly three decades.

The decline in consensus Supreme Court confirmations has been precipitous, and the escalation of partisan warfare has been sharp.

Deep bitterness lingers over the Democratic assault on Robert H. Bork in 1987; the routine deployment of filibusters against judicial nominees of both parties beginning during the administration of President George W. Bush; the Republican blockade of Judge Merrick B. Garland in 2016; the tumultuous confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018; and the hardball Republican move to rush Justice Barrett onto the court two years later.

With the Supreme Court deciding so many of the most polarizing issues of the day including abortion rights and affirmative action neither side is willing to cede much ground, and both display their battle scars.

It is a sad commentary on the nomination process that it has so disintegrated over the years, said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the handful of Republicans considered to be in play as potential backers of Mr. Bidens pick. If you look at the incredibly strong vote by which Stephen Breyer was confirmed, you just dont see it nowadays.

Democrats would dearly like to avoid a skin-of-the-teeth party-line vote for whomever Mr. Biden puts forward. One of the first calls made by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was to Ms. Collins, promising her whatever material and assistance he could provide to help her evaluate the forthcoming nominee.

Democrats also hope the fact that Mr. Bidens pick would replace a liberal justice and not tip the ideological balance of the firmly conservative court and the fact that she will be an African American woman will deter Republicans from a scorched-earth campaign when their odds of winning are low.

But while Republicans are promising an open-minded review of the nominee, hard feelings over the earlier confirmation clashes, such as Justice Kavanaughs fight against sexual assault allegations, are never far from the surface.

Whoever the president nominates will be treated fairly and with the dignity and respect someone of his or her caliber deserves, something not afforded to Justice Kavanaugh and other Republican nominees of the past, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a senior Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, said in response to Justice Breyers retirement.

Besides Ms. Collins, another Republican who will be the focus of Democratic attention is Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a frequent supporter of judicial nominees of Democratic presidents and the only Republican to oppose Justice Kavanaugh.

Ms. Murkowski is running for re-election this year under a new ranked-choice voting system back home. She is already opposed by a hard-right conservative vigorously backed by former President Donald J. Trump, who is furious at Ms. Murkowski for voting to convict him at his impeachment trial following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Siding with Mr. Bidens choice for the court could help her attract the Democratic and independent voters she could need to prevail under the new election rules in her state.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has also deferred to Democratic presidents in the past and voted for justices and lower-court judges they put forward.

Last year, Mr. Graham, Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski were the only three Republicans to back Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a front-runner to succeed Justice Breyer, for a seat on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Supporting someone for a circuit court seat is no guarantee of supporting that same person for the Supreme Court. However, backing someone for the high court after opposing that person for a lower court would be harder to reconcile, making it unlikely that any of the 44 Republicans who opposed Judge Jackson would reverse course and support her now. All were well aware at the time that she was a future high court prospect. Three Republicans were absent.

Mr. Biden could also select Judge J. Michelle Childs of Federal District Court in South Carolina, who has been strongly endorsed by Representative James E. Clyburn, a powerful lawmaker from that state and the No. 3 House Democrat. If Judge Childs is the presidents pick, Mr. Graham and South Carolinas other Republican senator, Tim Scott, could face pressure to back her.

But home-state allegiance is no guarantee. Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, opposed the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Colorado native, even though the senator introduced him at his confirmation hearing.

Justice Gorsuchs case is instructive. Though very conservative, he was the sort of highly experienced, pedigreed and qualified candidate a Republican president could have put forward in the past with the expectation that he would receive a strong show of support in the Senate despite ideological differences.

But since Justice Gorsuch was filling the seat held open by the nearly yearlong blockade of Judge Garland and had been nominated by Mr. Trump, most Democrats balked. Just three voted for his confirmation. Only one, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, remains in the Senate; he was also the sole Democrat to vote for Justice Kavanaugh.

Another potential nominee with a Senate voting history is Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of Federal District Court in Minnesota, who was confirmed on a 58-to-36 vote in 2016. Thirteen Republicans voted for her, and five of them remain in the Senate today, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader. But a vote for a district court nominee does not equate to a vote to place a person on the highest court.

Even before the nominee is known, it is clear the outcome in the Senate is most likely to be highly partisan, with the candidate receiving a few Republican votes at best and perhaps none at all. For a country torn apart by partisanship and a court struggling with its image and credibility, that is far from an ideal outcome.

I really think it would be harmful to the country to have a repeat of what we saw with the last two nominees being so narrowly confirmed, Ms. Collins said. I just dont think that is good for the country, nor the court.

Originally posted here:
Bitterness From Supreme Court Fights Hangs Over Coming Nomination - The New York Times

Democrats walk out of hearing with Florida’s top doctor – Associated Press

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo moved closer to Senate confirmation Wednesday after a tense hearing where Democrats accused the states top doctor of evading questions on his coronavirus policies and stormed out before casting their votes.

Ladapo, appointed in September by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, has drawn national scrutiny over his alignment with the governor in resisting COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other virus polices embraced by the White House and federal health officials.

At the hearing Wednesday before the Senate Committee on Health Policy, Democrats tried to pin Ladapo down with yes or no questions on whether he believed vaccines and masks work against coronavirus and other topics, but were often met with lengthy answers from Ladapo.

What I hear is arrogance and polite avoidance, said Sen. Janet Cruz, a Democrat. So if you wouldnt mind all of this fond rhetoric that you are applying, can we just get straight answers so that more people can hear more information.

In one exchange, Democratic Sen. Lauren Book repeatedly pressed Ladapo on whether he found coronavirus vaccines to be effective. Ladapo responded: yes or no questions are not that easy to find in science.

He continued, The most commonly used vaccines in the United States, which would be the Pfizer product and the product that was developed by Moderna, have been shown to have relatively high effectiveness for the prevention of hospitalization and death, and over time, relatively low protection from infection, he said.

In another exchange, Book grilled the surgeon general on whether he regretted his decision to refuse a face mask when meeting with a Democratic state lawmaker in October who told him she had a serious medical issue and later revealed a breast cancer diagnosis. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says cancer patients are at a higher risk to get severely ill from COVID-19 and may not build the same immunity to vaccines.

Consistent with my approach to clinical care and my approach to health policy issues, I think its very important to respect peoples personal preferences and I think thats a mutual issue, Ladapo said. So its important to respect peoples preferences and I think that when peoples preferences may differ, the goal ought to be to find a way where those individuals can achieve whatever outcome theyre aiming to achieve in a way that leaves everyone mutually comfortable.

After several more rounds of back and forth, Book told the committee we dont feel that were getting any answers and said Democrats would leave the room, refusing to vote on Ladapos confirmation.

After the walkout, Republicans, who control the committee, quickly voted to move the surgeon generals confirmation forward. Ladapo must receive an additional approval from a separate committee and the full Senate before he is officially confirmed.

See original here:
Democrats walk out of hearing with Florida's top doctor - Associated Press

Voting bill collapses, Democrats unable to change filibuster – Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) Voting legislation that Democrats and civil rights leaders say is vital to protecting democracy collapsed when two senators refused to join their own party in changing Senate rules to overcome a Republican filibuster after a raw, emotional debate.

The outcome Wednesday night was a stinging defeat for President Joe Biden and his party, coming at the tumultuous close to his first year in office.

Despite a day of piercing debate and speeches that often carried echoes of an earlier era when the Senate filibuster was deployed by opponents of civil rights legislation, Democrats could not persuade holdout senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia to change the Senate procedures on this one bill and allow a simple majority to advance it.

I am profoundly disappointed, Biden said in a statement after the vote.

However, the president said he is not deterred and vowed to explore every measure and use every tool at our disposal to stand up for democracy.

Voting rights advocates are warning that Republican-led states nationwide are passing laws making it more difficult for Black Americans and others to vote by consolidating polling locations, requiring certain types of identification and ordering other changes.

Vice President Kamala Harris briefly presided over the Senate, able to break a tie in the 50-50 Senate if needed, but she left before the final vote. The rules change was rejected 52-48, with Manchin and Sinema joining the Republicans in opposition.

The nighttime voting brought an end, for now, to legislation that has been a top Democratic priority since the party took control of Congress and the White House.

This is a moral moment, said Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga.

The Democrats bill, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, would make Election Day a national holiday, ensure access to early voting and mail-in ballots which have become especially popular during the COVID-19 pandemic and enable the Justice Department to intervene in states with a history of voter interference, among other changes. It has passed the House.

Both Manchin and Sinema say they support the legislation, but Democrats fell far short of the 60 votes needed to push the bill over the Republican filibuster. It failed to advance 51-49 on a largely party-line vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., cast a procedural vote against so the bill could be considered later.

Next, Schumer put forward a rules change for a talking filibuster on this one bill. It would require senators to stand at their desks and exhaust the debate before holding a simple majority vote, rather than the current practice that simply allows senators to privately signal their objections.

But that, too, failed because Manchin and Sinema were unwilling to change the Senate rules a party-line vote by Democrats alone.

Emotions were on display during the floor debate.

When Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky whether he would pause for a question, McConnell left the chamber, refusing to respond.

Durbin said he would have asked McConnell, Does he really believe that theres no evidence of voter suppression?

The No. 2 Republican, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, said at one point, I am not a racist.

McConnell, who led his party in doing away with the filibusters 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees during Donald Trumps presidency, warned against changing the rules again.

McConnell derided the fake hysteria from Democrats over the states new voting laws and called the pending bill a federal takeover of election systems. He admonished Democrats in a fiery speech and said doing away with filibuster rules would break the Senate.

Manchin drew a roomful of senators for his own speech, upstaging the presidents news conference and defending the filibuster. He said changing to a majority-rule Senate would only add to the dysfunction that is tearing this nation apart.

Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus walked across the Capitol for the proceedings. We want this Senate to act today in a favorable way. But if it dont, we aint giving up, said Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., the highest-ranking Black member of Congress.

Manchin did open the door to a more tailored package of voting law changes, including to the Electoral Count Act, which was tested during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. He said senators from both parties are working on that and it could draw Republican support.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said a bipartisan coalition should work on legislation to ensure voter access, particularly in far-flung areas like her state, and to shore up Americans faith in democracy.

We dont need, we do not need a repeat of 2020 when by all accounts our last president, having lost the election, sought to change the results, said Murkowski.

She said the Senate debate had declined to a troubling state: Youre either a racist or a hypocrite. Really, really? Is that where we are?

At one point, senators broke out in applause after a spirited debate between Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, among the more experienced lawmakers, and new Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., over the history of the Voting Rights Act.

Sinema sat in her chair throughout much of the days the debate, largely glued to her phone, but rose to her feet to deliver her vote against the rules change.

In a statement, Sinema said the outcome must not be the end of our work to protect our democracy. But she warned, these challenges cannot be solved by one party or Washington alone.

Schumer contended the fight is not over and he ridiculed Republican claims that the new election laws in the states will not end up hurting voter access and turnout, comparing it to Trumps big lie about the 2020 presidential election.

Democrats decided to press ahead despite the potential for high-stakes defeat as Biden is marking his first year in office with his priorities stalling out in the face of solid Republican opposition and the Democrats inability to unite around their own goals. They wanted to force senators on the record even their own partys holdouts to show voters where they stand.

Once reluctant himself to change Senate rules, Biden has stepped up his pressure on senators to do just that. But the push from the White House, including Bidens blistering speech last week in Atlanta comparing opponents to segregationists, is seen as too late.

___

Associated Press writers Farnoush Amiri and Brian Slodysko contributed to this report.

___

This story has been corrected to show the name of the act tested by Jan. 6 events is the Electoral Count Act, not the Electoral College Act.

See the original post here:
Voting bill collapses, Democrats unable to change filibuster - Associated Press

Give Manchin What He Wants Already – New York Magazine

Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

The Democratic Party is finally trying to make Joe Manchin an offer he cant refuse. According to NBC News, the partys Senate leadership and committee chairs are working on a new scaled-back version of the Build Back Better Act Joe Bidens signature climate and social spending bill aimed at satisfying all of the West Virginia Democrats long-standing demands.

For six months, the party leadership has tried to shift Manchins redlines instead of toeing them. Last July, the senator laid out his conditions for supporting the centerpiece of Bidens domestic agenda in a written document co-signed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Manchin promised to vote for the legislation if it authorized no more than $1.5 trillion in spending, dedicated any revenue exceeding $1.5 trillion to deficit reduction, and included no additional handouts or transfer payments, among other things.

Throughout September and October 2021, Manchin repeatedly emphasized that his demands on the deficit could not be satisfied through budget gimmicks. Specifically, he told Politico that he believed starting new programs that shut off a few years from now is akin to making them permanent since Congress will never be able to shut them off. During that same period, the senator reiterated his opposition to handouts, demanding that Bidens refundable child tax credit include a work requirement.

House Democrats proceeded to pass a version of Build Back Better that (1) authorized $1.8 trillion in spending, (2) achieved deficit neutrality only because it phased out programs that Democrats insist will actually become permanent, and (3) included an extension of Bidens child benefit that was free of any work requirement.

This was a worthwhile exercise in many respects. Over the course of his Senate career, Manchin has proven ideologically malleable, the substantive content of his centrism shifting with the political winds. If Democrats could establish $1.8 trillion as the mainstream Democratic position on Build Back Betters top-line cost, perhaps they could get Manchin to come up from $1.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Manchins position on the child tax credit that the government should condemn the nations most vulnerable children to poverty so as to punish their parents for being unemployed is so morally odious and sociologically ignorant that it was well worth trying to force him off of it.

Nevertheless, when Manchin came out in opposition to the bill, no one should have been surprised. Yet many Democrats took his opposition as a shocking betrayal. From their perspective, a large majority of congressional Democrats had favored a $3.5 trillion package and had generously chosen to meet Manchin more than halfway. Whats more, they had allowed the West Virginian to veto the Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP), a core pillar of Bidens climate agenda. And although Manchin had pointedly refused to endorse the House bills framework publicly, Biden had led congressional progressives to believe that the senator had done so privately during his efforts to end their blockade of the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Much Democratic consternation was rooted in a denial of the fundamental asymmetry in negotiations between Manchin and his partys mainstream. As the senator told his colleagues in October, he is comfortable with a $0 Build Back Better bill which is to say, he would rather see the legislation die than add substantially to the deficit, as inflation is now his primary economic concern. Meanwhile, Manchin is all but invulnerable to progressive, grassroots pressure. He represents a state that backed Donald Trump over Joe Biden by 40 points. As of November, his approval rating among West Virginia voters was 60 percent, while Bidens was 32 percent.

Put simply, in a negotiation between a group of lawmakers who all strongly prefer $1.5 trillion in new spending to $0 and one lawmaker who could live with either and is immune to their pressure, the latter gets to dictate terms.

Even after Manchin refused to back the House bill, the Biden administration refused to internalize this reality. In December, Manchin reportedly presented the White House with a $1.8 trillion proposal that included more than $500 billion in climate funding (enough to fund virtually all of Bidens green agenda), prekindergarten, and a permanent expansion of Affordable Care Act subsidies, among other things. The administration rejected this offer because it did not include a one-year extension of the enhanced child tax credit. After that, negotiations between Manchin and the White House broke down, and the former went on Fox News to declare his opposition to Build Back Better.

In the months since, many in blue America have given up on passing Bidens top legislative priority. As Politico reported Wednesday morning: Some Democrats on the Hill say its time to cut their losses and move on. But such fatalism is indefensible.

It is entirely possible that Manchin is acting in bad faith. As Ive written, the most plausible theory for why the West Virginians vote is unwinnable is that he does not want Bidens climate agenda to pass. Since the president proposed more social programs than $1.8 trillion can finance, almost every individual provision of Build Back Better is up for negotiation except for its investment in the green transition. A spending bill that did not include hundreds of billions in climate funding would cease to be a version of Build Back Better. Given Manchins political and personal ties to the coal industry whose decline would be accelerated by Build Back Betters passage it is conceivable that the senators myriad demands are mere pretexts for sabotage.

But there are many reasons to doubt this theory. First, if Manchins overriding priority was to maximize coals market share (by mendacious means, if necessary), then it would have been extremely weird for him to include $500 billion in climate funding in his December offer to the White House. I guess one could posit that Manchin presumed his proposal would be turned down and that offering it would therefore provide him with an alibi for blocking the broader bill. But that seems like an awfully elaborate scheme. If Manchin wants to oppose climate spending so as to defend the coal industry, why wouldnt he just say so? West Virginia politicians do not generally go out of their way to conceal their efforts to aid Big Coal.

It is true that the precise details of Manchins climate proposal are unknown. But if the senators green spending departed wildly from Bidens, the White House chose not to leak that fact, even as it derided Manchins offer for its deficient social provisions. Given that Manchin chairs the Senate Energy Committee, which has released a draft version of Build Back Betters climate section that is broadly consistent with Bidens vision, it seems overwhelmingly likely that Manchin really did offer to support the White Houses green agenda in December.

For another thing, Manchin co-authored two of the most significant pieces of climate legislation in American history. The Energy Act of 2020, written by Manchin and Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, included $35 billion for zero-emission energy-technology research and development (including wind, solar, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage); an extension of tax credits for wind and solar investment, which were expected to expire; funding for low-income families to reduce their energy bills (and consumption) through home weatherization; and a plan to gradually eliminate the use of climate-warming hydrofluorocarbons in air conditioners and refrigerators. Last years bipartisan infrastructure bill, meanwhile, allocated $65 billion for clean energy and electrical grids along with a $7.5 billion downpayment on a national network of electric vehicle charging stations.

Both of these measures were grossly inadequate to the scale of the climate crisis. And both included provisions friendly to fossil fuels. Nevertheless, each delivered historically large subsidies to Big Coals clean competitors. If Manchins overriding priority were to maximize coals market share, it would be odd for him to have championed those laws.

Finally, and most significantly, Manchin has recently signaled that he is interested in moving forward with Bidens climate agenda. The climate thing is one that we probably can come to an agreement much easier than anything else, Manchin told reporters in early January. Last week, Manchins office leaked word that the senator wants to expand one of Build Back Betters climate provisions: Whereas the current legislation establishes a six-year tax credit for nuclear energy production, Manchin wants it to create a ten-year one.

So at the very least, the theory that Manchins demands are alibis for doing Big Coals bidding isnt obviously correct.

And if climate isnt the stumbling block, its hard to see why Manchin wouldnt support a version of Build Back Better that met all of his avowed demands. Theres little reason to doubt the sincerity of Manchins support for universal prekindergarten. West Virginia already has a pre-K program, so Bidens plan would merely enable Manchins state to offload some of its existing budget burdens onto Uncle Sam. Manchin has also been a consistent supporter of expanding the Affordable Care Act and unwinding much of the Trump tax cuts.

True, the Washington Post reported in early January that Manchins $1.8 trillion offer was no longer on the table. Yet even as administration officials complained that Manchin would not take yes for an answer, they tacitly admitted that the White House had not actually tried to accept the senators terms. As the Post wrote, Senior Democrats say they do not believe Manchin would support his offer even if [my emphasis] the White House tried adopting it in full.

Again, its possible that Manchin really is a bad-faith actor. He has shifted some of his positions over the course of negotiations. But as of this writing, Democrats have yet to try simply meeting the senators demands from last July even though a version of Build Back Better that was complaint with them would still do a lot of good.

As Slates Jordan Weissmann has noted, if Democrats pursued only those revenue-raising measures that Manchin has personally endorsed, they could finance virtually all of Bidens climate agenda, his Obamacare improvements, prekindergarten, $209 billion in funding for at-home eldercare, and reduce the deficit by $220 billion over a decade. Such legislation would meet or exceed all of Manchins stated demands.

According to NBC News, Schumer is quietly considering precisely this sort of deal: To lure Manchin back to the table, Senate Democrats are mulling reserving a portion of the plans revenue for deficit reduction. No Senate Democrats want to publicly endorse this act of surrender, however, until Manchin signs off on it. For his part, Biden signaled openness to such a bitter compromise Wednesday afternoon, when he told reporters that the enhanced child tax credit probably would not make it into the final version of Build Back Better.

There are stumbling blocks in the way of such a deal. Persuading progressives to swallow their child care programs demise will be easier if dropping that measure enables a larger investment in prekindergarten than the House bill currently makes. But for that to be the case, any deficit reduction would likely need to derive from larger tax increases on the rich and/or more savings from prescription drug negotiations instead of cutbacks in the bills overall level of social spending. Manchin, for his part, has endorsed strong price controls on prescription drugs and raising the corporate tax rate. The obstacle to those provisions has been Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema.

But Sinema is more vulnerable to progressive pressure than Manchin is in that she represents a (light) blue state and will likely face a strong primary challenge in 2024.The Arizona senator has refused to abolish the filibuster in order to facilitate the passage of voting rights legislation. But in defying her party on that issue, she has had Manchin at her side and Senate tradition as her shield. Sinema may prove to be enough of a wild card to single-handedly kill Bidens agenda in the name of preventing a tax hike on corporations. But it seems quite possible that if Democrats appease Manchin, Sinema will feel too isolated to maintain her intransigence.

In any case, giving Manchin what he wants is preferable to leaving Bidens agenda for dead. Perhaps there is some other strategy that could credibly move Manchin without awarding him further substantive concessions. Given that caving to Manchin involves acquiescing to a large increase in Americas child poverty rate, such a gambit would surely be worth pursing. But the partys quixotic effort to strong-arm the senator on the filibuster does not inspire confidence.

A version of Build Back Better that included nothing except for its climate provisions would be worth fighting for, let alone one that also made prekindergarten nearly universal. If the U.S. invests $500 billion into a green transition this year, it will likely hit its emissions target for 2030 and help catalyze cost reductions and innovations that will help developing countries industrialize sustainably. Before Democrats cut their losses and move on from averting catastrophic climate change, they should at least see if Manchin is willing to accept what hes been asking for.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

The rest is here:
Give Manchin What He Wants Already - New York Magazine